Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure today to join in the debate raised by the Labor Party and, in particular, the member for Perth. The allegation has been made by the Labor Party that, over 10 long years, the government has failed to deliver on education. The MPI states:

The Government’s failure over ten long years to act and deliver the long-term investment in education ...

I find this statement quite breathtaking. It is fair enough that we raise issues that are important, and certainly education is an important issue to everybody on both sides of this place. So I welcome the fact that we are seeing more and more focus and more and more of the national spotlight being placed on education as a very important area of public policy and public investment.

The use of the phrase ‘10 long years’ in the wording of the MPI illustrates where the Labor Party are coming from. To correct the record, this coming Friday will mark 11 years of excellent government, good government and responsible government. This is a government that responds to the needs in the community. The MPI is reflective of the fact that the Labor Party are struggling in opposition; they are finding it a very tiresome place to be in. They have been all over the shop on education policy. I have seen during my term in this place, which is now 2½ years, the Labor Party put forward policy after policy which has come across as very contradictory.

The Howard government’s record on investment in education is very strong and one that the government can be proud of. Investment in education has never gone backwards under this government and, in fact, has outstripped growth in the economy, and by any other measure that you would like to use.

It is also important to say that this debate should not just be about a national curriculum. If we do that, we will simply debate the past. In parliament today, we may have reached consensus on the notion of having a national curriculum, a consistent curriculum across all of the states and territories, which all students can rely on to get a good, strong education—a good start in life. It will mean that whatever grade a student achieves, they will leave school with some fundamentals. They will leave school knowing the standards they will need. It is a good thing that we have agreement on this issue. If we restrict our debate to the national curriculum, we will have lost the game. There is a lot more than just that to achieve in this country.

We need to see in education not only greater consistency but higher standards and a stronger emphasis placed on the quality of teachers. We have not heard about that at all today from Labor. Education is absolutely fundamental to a person’s success in later life. Obviously it is very important to have a prosperous economy into the future and necessary that our society be a cohesive place, but the value of high-quality teachers should not be lost in this. Whenever the Howard government and its ministers promote the notion of rewarding good teachers and giving them recognition for undertaking extra development and making extra effort, the Labor Party holds us back through the states and through its industrial wing—the Australian Education Union. Every time a reform agenda is presented, it is fought against on the basis of anti-Howard-government rhetoric.

It is very important in the time that I have left in this debate to firmly put on the record the facts on funding. Over the 10, nearly 11, years of the Howard government, investment in schools across Australia has been impressive at 160 per cent growth. In the current financial year, federal government funding to Australian schools has increased by 11 per cent—that is triple the CPI. Compare that with increased investment of just 4.9 per cent by the states. If the states were to match the Commonwealth’s increase by the formula set out in the Schools Assistance Act, we would see an extra $1½ billion dollars being invested in our schools today. The MPI that we close on now is simply a reflection of sour grapes on the part of the Labor Party, trying to catch up to the Howard government.

See this speech in context